Additionally, it would seem to be both the safer course for the individual involved as well as the most truly shepherd-like action for the peace of mind and sanctification of the sheep.  If they cared, about themselves and those they intend to sanctify, they'd take the appropriate action.  The fact that most (if not all) hesitate or even refuse to do so says a lot.

Agreed ... just providing peace of soul to the faithful would alone suffice.

I rewatched this earlier today and it's absolutely filled with strawmen, gaslighting, and in fact doing exactly what they falsely accuse the other side of doing.



When I have time, I'll dissect this dishonest piece of trash.

Let's get this straight.  Despite their excuse, THE NUMBER ONE REASON that they assert that NO Orders are valid is in order to maintain their relationship with the Conciliars.  That's it.

Now, they come up with other reasons for it ... but (and they misrepresent this also) they need to get this straight.  Burden of proof is 100% on them to prove there's no positive doubt.  Guess what.  They can't do it.  They (have to) admit that at the very least there were significant changes to the Rite of Episcopal Consecration.  They can ARGUE that, oh, it's valid ... but they absolutely cannot do so with the degree of authority sufficient to dispel rational positive doubt.  Only the Church can do that.  But you'll notice that THE strongest argument they have, they can't go to.  So, the strongest argument is that if a legitimate Pope promulgates Rites, they cannot be doubtful or invalid.  Period.  That would be contrary to the Church's indefectibility.  But if they say that then they'd have to admit that the Pope also cannot enganger souls in other ways, such as with bad teaching ... and so their entire R&R position would be gutted.

Also, they laughably claim (and gaslight) that it's SVs who came up with this because they feel the need to declare anything from the "Church" (as they call it unequivocally, having dropped +Lefebvre's qualification of it as Conciliar Church) invalid or problematic.

Hogwash.  SVs have no such "need".  We recognize the validity of NO Baptism, Confession, Confirmation (when proper matter & form are used), etc. and would certainly recognize the validity of the other NOM Sacraments ... HAD THEY NOT CHANGED THEM.  That has nothing to do with the SV position, just as the Orthodox's valid Sacraments do not somehow legitimize them.  It's exactly the opposite ... if they were honest enough to admit it, where if you hold that Montini et al. were legitimate Popes, you MUST hold that their Sacramental Rites are valid ... except, as I mentioned, they're not honest enough to admit it.